Kirk Anderson ponders the whole "sure he did bad things, but HE WAS SUCH A GENTLEMAN" phenomenon. When I saw this brilliant toon, I (a) cried because I hadn't done it, and (b) printed it out and hung it on my wall (update: he's got another great one, "Supply Side Journalism"). Ted Rall imagines what the afterlife might look like under the Reagan administration (see also his column this week, and his second toon on the subject). See also: Tom Toles, and this sketchbook piece from Scott Bateman. Joel Pett has a great one, wrapping in the whole "Reagan on Rushmore" angle. Signe Wilkinson finds history getting fuzzy. Mark Fiore says: "Don't be sad, we've got President Reaganesque!".

I of course support stem-cell research, and I do think it's hypocritical of conservatives to talk about how much they love Nancy and Ronald while ignoring Nancy's pleas for stem-cell research. BUT I'm a little nervous about focusing on stem-cell research when talking about the Reagan legacy--this seems like it could be a way of deflecting criticism by avoiding what Reagan actually did and stood for before he got ill, an odd way of using a conservative's legacy for liberal ends. That is, it's a way to draw a cartoon that's both liberal and pro-Reagan. So it's a good point to make, but it shouldn't be the only point. That being said, Scott Bateman's got a good one, and so does Jeff Danziger. See also: Bill Day, Matt Davies, Joe Heller (and others). (Counterpoint: August has a compelling argument for why this IS an important angle to take.)

For the tribute cartoons, and my initial thoughts on the coverage of Reagan's legacy, please return to the "Jellybeans in Heaven" post.

The media's blissful coverage this week "serves a strategic function," Parry says. "When the press is under attack for being liberal, the logical response is to prove you're not." If ever there's been a time when the press handed the reins over to the Republican sensibility, it was this week.